DNC Chairwoman: “A great night for us”

posted at 12:55 pm on January 4, 2012 by Tina Korbe

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is gleeful this morning, convinced that Mitt Romney’s narrow win of the Iowa caucuses actually amounts to a loss for him — and a boon for Democrats.

“When is a win a loss?” DWS asked in an interview with Gretchen Carlson on Fox News this morning. “When you spent six years and more than $4 million running for the second time trying to win the state of Iowa and you spent the most and only beat the guy who spent the least in the state by eight votes.”

But that’s a bit misleading. As Byron York pointed out (and Ed cited), Romney might have spent more than Santorum — but only because he had more to spend. Romney concentrated far fewer of his total resources on Iowa than did Santorum. Compare Santorum’s 350 Iowa campaign events in 105 days with Romney’s 38 campaign events in a mere 19 days.

Insofar as such a close race indicates that Republican voters in Iowa were still not excited to vote overwhelmingly for Mitt Romney, last night hints at how far the GOP has to go to be prepared for the general. No candidate is yet a rallying point for conservatives, moderates, independents and disaffected Democrats alike. But that still doesn’t make last night “a great night” for Democrats. The GOP base, at least, will be eager to vote against Obama almost no matter who the nominee is. Even if that nominee doesn’t attract disappointed former Obama supporters, that doesn’t mean Obama won’t have his work cut out for him to actually turn enough supporters out at the polls.

Then, too, conventional wisdom and common sense now suggest that the nominee will almost certainly be Romney — and, if that’s not necessarily good news for full-spectrum conservatives (my latest concern is Romney’s loose support for a value-added tax), it’s also really not good news for the Dems, as Carlson pointed out repeatedly to DWS this morning. Romney consistently gives Obama a run for his money in hypothetical head-to-head match-ups, and the latest Rasmussen poll to pit the former Massachusetts governor against the incumbent president shows Romney ahead by six points, 45 to 39. Most importantly, in an election that will be dominated by jobs and the economy, Romney has a much stronger record of job creation than the president. The DNC fear of Romney has been demonstrated repeatedly by their insistent attacks on him — but DWS suggests Romney has earned that scrutiny by repeatedly calling out Obama.

If anything, DWS’ spin of last night and the entire nomination process might eventually do what no Republican campaign has yet been able to do successfully: Incense Republicans enough to vehemently rally around whatever candidate prevails in the primary. Certainly, she makes me feel defensive of Romney — and nobody else has been able to do that.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Anyone who has thought about fleeing the Democratic party will do so after listening to this moron for a few scant seconds. Thank you, DNC, for hiring this annoying twit and driving away Democrats in droves.

I’m pretty sure if elected he’s not going to side with the 20% that identify as commun, er, liberal in the US.

darwin on January 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Makes sense to me.

As President he will act totally different than he did as Governor under very similar circumstances. I mean the MSM will only praise him when he caves in to the Democrats just like when he was in MA. He after all is just doing this for the good of the country not to stroke his ego. . . Wrong

That really really really liberal Democratic electorate in MA voted in 2000 to lower the tax rate from 5.85% to 5.0% in a ballot measure. That was supposed over 4 years. In 2003, Romney said no more and kept the rate at 5.3% instead of allowing it to fall all the way down to 5.0% as the people of MA wanted.

Even at 5.3% MA’s income tax rate is pretty low relative to other states. It’s sales tax is 6.25%, which is average compared to other states. And there is no sales tax on clothes or food. It’s lower than deep red states like MS or SC.

MA is a deep blue state, no doubt about it. But when you look at state fiscal policy, it’s actually fairly conservative.

And he would manage the decline so we only go off the cliff at quarter speed is not the enemy here as well? No thanks, I’ll vote for someone that would throw us in reverse and miss the said cliff.

AH_C on January 4, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I am no Romney supporter, the guy is a douche and I will do whatever I can to make sure he does not get the nomination. But if he does, heaven forbid, gain the nomination he will hopefully go slowly enough towards the cliff so that in 4 or 8 years someone like, say, Marco Rubio could be elected and get things right. Romney as kind of an evil placeholder, because if Zero is reelected we most certainly will be irreversibly shoved off the cliff. Don’t take your eye off the ball, and the ball is Zero’s dethronement.

As President he will act totally different than he did as Governor under very similar circumstances. I mean the MSM will only praise him when he caves in to the Democrats just like when he was in MA. He after all is just doing this for the good of the country not to stroke his ego. . . Wrong

Steveangell on January 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM

I’m not pushing Romney, I’m just saying I think a lot of people forget he was a Republican in a blue state with a democrat majority legislature.

If you were being sarcastic that post was insulting. If you sincerely think the country is better off with Obama for another four years because it removes the mask from the democrats, you are simply mistaken.

Unfortunately, the country will not be better off with Romney as he attempts to compromise with the democrats.

If November is a choice between Obama and Romney, there is no reason for a conservative to participate in the election, conservative lose either way, and that means Romney loses.

I’m not pushing Romney, I’m just saying I think a lot of people forget he was a Republican in a blue state with a democrat majority legislature.

darwin on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Arnold had that in CA, did he not? I don’t recall ArnoldCare being implemented. I don’t recall an assault weapons ban implemented. I don’t believe 80% of Arnold’s court appointments were liberal Democrats.

It is possible to not give in to every whim of Dems in the legislature as a Republican governor. Granted Arnold did a lot of stupid shit too. But at least in his first term tried to stand up to Democrats. Romney didn’t even try, he just went along with every far left policy the legislature sent him.

If November is a choice between Obama and Romney, there is no reason for a conservative to participate in the election, conservative lose either way, and that means Romney loses.

Skandia Recluse on January 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

True.

If you look at the Romney arguments, they all contradict each other.

Argument 1. He is conservative, so cons should vote for him.

Argument 2. He is a moderate and it will appeal to moderates, cons should vote for him because he’s not Obama.

Argument 3. He is conservative but had to govern like a liberal in MA because those meanie Democrats in the legislature bullied him around. But he will stand up to Harry Reid as president so cons should vote for him.

Not only is he the biggest flip flopper ever, even his sales pitch flip flops from one minute to the next.

It’s really not Debbie’s fault. She’s stupid and can’t help it. Oh, I’m sorry. Was that insensitive? Fine, let me re-phrase. She has only two living brain cells floating in her head, searching for each other…but they never actually make contact so there’s no spark.

I was NOT being sarcastic I would in fact campaign against Romney I will not make the McCain mistake twice.

We are far better off with Obama than McCain.

McCain would have domestically passed all Obama did but with GOP help. In addition he would have passed Amnesty and the Dream Act. Thus Illegals would most likely be better off than Americans when it came to going to College just like in Texas where the American Students pay $564 of their tuition for the tuition of Illegals.

Under McCain the GOP would have become a very small minority Party. Romney would totally destroy the GOP. Perhaps a Tea Party would eventually replace it but that would take a long long time.

I am no Romney supporter, the guy is a douche and I will do whatever I can to make sure he does not get the nomination. But if he does, heaven forbid, gain the nomination he will hopefully go slowly enough towards the cliff so that in 4 or 8 years someone like, say, Marco Rubio could be elected and get things right. Romney as kind of an evil placeholder, because if Zero is reelected we most certainly will be irreversibly shoved off the cliff. Don’t take your eye off the ball, and the ball is Zero’s dethronement.

NOMOBO on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

AGREED AGREED AGREED. I have been saying this over and over. Some dolts on here come up with this Romney is to the left of Odoodoo. WTF?? An untethered Odoodoo with no re-election to worry about will be the death of this country with no reversing. Those of you who sat on your vote last election, well, see what happens.

Barrack has governed to the right of Romney when comparing records. Sure, Romney talks a good game. But his record as gov of MA is to the left of Obama’s first 3 years as president.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Romney would be any better than Obama as president. You’re basically going on nothing but his word…the world of a guy who has changed his positions more often than I’ve changed socks.

Romney could be a great fiscal conservative president. He could also be the most liberal president ever. We just have no idea what he will be because he has been all things to all people for the past 20 years. He’s crap shoot. And to be honest, I’d rather have the devil I know in there with a GOP house/senate than the devil I don’t know with a Dem house/senate.

angryed on January 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I see where you’re coming from, angryed, I really do. I sometimes think the best thing is to let it crash and burn with the Dems at the wheel.

Then I wonder whether it would be just as well to have a “placeholder” and hope that the next generation of 2016 candidates might not have the “cut of the jib” to do what is needed to do.

And what really is concerning is the idea that another “wise latina” or total moronic puppet like Kagan might get nominated to the SCOTUS.

DWS can say and think whatever, she only sings for the choir and the rest have tuned her and her kind (from either side) out long ago.
If you are more committed to a brand or party or candidate than the country, if you are content to be indoctrinated rather than educated and accept the realites before us than you aren’t worth listening to at all.
I’m not a republican and can’t vote in the primaries but, will vote republican no matter who it is just to help throw a wrench in the machine that is driving us further down this path.

Reagan was the last POTUS who could and did appeal to the majority of the populace and ask for them to lean on their Congresscritters. He did that with Congress controlled by the Democrats and got a lot done. We won’t have another Reagan so controlling Congress is critical. When we do, I pray we won’t screw it up like the last time we controlled Congress and lost it all. Thanks to them and Bush we got Obamageddon.

Dementia is a terrible thing. You and angryed need to get back on your meds. Seriously.

cicerone on January 4, 2012 at 1:56 PM

We must be making some good points.

Seriously look at where the GOP was when Newt came up with the Contract with America. We were a small minority two elections later we were in the majority but then a lot of Democrats became Republicans and got the GOP to feed on Pork just like they did as Democrats. It nearly destroyed the GOP and brought us Obama. Now your answer it to try another guy who governed a State like a Democrat would have and ran to the Left of his Democratic opponent because of meaningless campaign propaganda.

When we do, I pray we won’t screw it up like the last time we controlled Congress and lost it all. Thanks to them and Bush we got Obamageddon.

jb34461 on January 4, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Try to elect Romney and you will indeed screw it up.

I mean really how stupid do you think Americans are.

In the General it will be made clear just how far to the left Romney ran Mass. It will be made clear that he is further to the left than his opponent was. Thus Americans will say why on earth should I vote for someone that is claiming to be a Republican but runs to the left of a real Democrat leftist. He will lose but so will most of the other Republicans running and Obama will have his majority back.

Why is it that we continue to thing that Democrats are stupid. I mean they continually stay in the Majority and quickly regain it when they lose it for a short period of time. Now they are setting up a new Democrat Majority and most here have no idea what on earth is happening to them.

So many people seem to want the perfect candidate but I hate to break it to you none of them are clean.

EnochCain on January 4, 2012 at 2:03 PM

..and why is that?

For the last 60 years, at least, Christians have been demonized, conservatives demonized, and marginalize by the radical left. Look at what happened to Bush W, he campaigned as a conservative and tried to moderated that with ‘compassion’. The media and the democrats savaged him anyway.

There aren’t any conservative politicians left, they’ve all been driven out. So the only voices the remaining politicians hear are the loudest, most radical leftist democrats.

What do you want to bet, Romney picks a conservative VP? It will be McCain/Palin all over again, and it won’t work much better this time than it did then. The best we can hope for is a variation of Bush/Cheney and even that only led us further along the path we’re on now.

I’m sorry, anyone who says they would not prefer a Massachusetts moderate Republican over a Chicago-thug, to-the-left-of-Hugo Chavez, dyed in the wool Marxist Socialist, Manchurian president has their head so far up their butt that they have to see a proctologist and a dentist in the same appointment.

Think with your heads people, stop with the gut reactions and hyperbole. Everyone knows that the end of Obama’s reign of terror must end in order for us to restore this country.

No, not really. But if it helps you to get through the day then, by all means, keep that pleasant thought in your head.

In the meantime, I accept that Romney is not exactly the last of the red-hot Conservatives. But the idea that electing him would be as bad as or worse than Obama getting re-elected is on a whole other level of silliness.

To all those who are sincerely worried about Romney (as opposed to those who are merely ranting for the exercise) I would say this:

Put your energy and resources into making sure that the GOP takes full control of Congress. Then let the Conservatives generate the legislation that we all want. Let them hold Romney’s feet to the fire. Do you really think that Romney is going to veto legislation that the GOP-controlled Congress sends his way?

I’m no Romney fan, but I’m so tired of people saying that he’s been campaigning for years and he is therefore doomed to failure because he didn’t wipe the floor with the opponents. Who cares if he’s been supposedly campaigning? Nobody knows who he is. I’m a Republican and I barely know who he is. People who don’t hang out on Conservative sites are not likely to know much about him, and who cares? I remember back when I was a “normal” person who didn’t troll political sites–I didn’t vote in primaries and I didn’t pay much attention to the race until afterwards. That’s the way most people are–they wait to see who the final 2 are, then decide. So him tying with Santorum? Meh…just keep in mind that we’ve had a succession of leaders the past year, and Romney’s the only one to maintain a consistent position at the top. I like Santorum, but I also liked Cain and that didn’t go so well…

And I think it’s a very big stretch to say he’s been campaigning that whole time. So what if we all knew he was going to run and the guy’s so rich he doesn’t have to work a normal job between elections? Doesn’t mean he’s really campaining.

But again, I’m not a Romney fan. But one of the things I like about him is his sort of generic nondescriptness. It doesn’t inspire passion, true, but any candidate who inspires good passion among Conservatives will inspire negative passion among Democrats. What I want almost more than anything for our next President is somebody who is not divisive so this country can go back to not obsessing over the Presidency like it has for the past 15 or so years–ever since Clinton it feels like it’s been a war, getting worse and worse. I miss the days when the President was just some cool big dude who represented all of us and not Enemy #1 to half the country.

ALSO, can somebody tell me why this stupid site always has me logged in when I’m composing a post, but when I submit suddenly I’m not logged in and have to go through this garbage of back, clicking my name, then logging in, then finding the post I wanted to comment on and copying and pasting my reply? Annoying as hell.

But if he does, heaven forbid, gain the nomination he will hopefully go slowly enough towards the cliff so that in 4 or 8 years someone like, say, Marco Rubio could be elected and get things right. Romney as kind of an evil placeholder, because if Zero is reelected we most certainly will be irreversibly shoved off the cliff. Don’t take your eye off the ball, and the ball is Zero’s dethronement.

NOMOBO on January 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM

We don’t have the luxury of time – we’re already 100% of our GDP in debt. Slashing trillions is what’s needed now from the bully pulpit of the Oval Office, not ephermal savings by reducing the growth of spending which is what Romney proposes.

That’s why I’d rather have Congress struggling to justify the status quo against a Ron Paul or anyone else not afraid to use the veto pen as to why the spending needs to be maintained.

The only way I could relax with Mittwit as POTUS is if Congress was predominately TP as they would bend him to the right. But with a soft & compliant GOP such as we have, they will drift in bi-partisan accord. Better to have the GOP Congress battling Oboobi, than gleefully going along with Mitt.

To wit,
Think of the following where the candidate has a compliant Congress and where their comfort spot would be from the left vs right perspective of a TP voter:(hope it comes out as well as it did in preview ;)

At this point in my life I would vote for Arianna Huffington to replace DWS. At least Arainna has that Green Acres Zsa Zsa accent, instead of that nasal Jewish American Princes who now holds the office.

As I’m fond of saying, “It’s not a perfect world.” Our representative democracy has it’s shortcomings. But we all need to su-k it up and be grown-up about our voting in Nov-2012.

For those convinced that Romney is little different than 0bumble… The process winnows down the fields in both parties and we end up with a choice of two (sometimes three) candidates.

You take a good, hard look at the candidates, and do one’s best to choose one that MOST CLOSELY matches your values. More often than not, it’s the lesser of two evils. So hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils!

Wishing some Miracle Man/Woman would come along and soundly defeat 0stumble by doing exactly what you want, just AIN’T GONNA’ HAPPEN. Deal with it.

Sure, I’d prefer to do a 180 degree turn away from the cliff we’re headed to. But if the only choice is to choose someone that slows down the march to the cliff, that’s what we need to do… and hope in two or four years we can make further course corrections, which will eventually add up to a 180 degree turn away from the cliff. It’s not a perfect world.

Yeah, until about the 4th day of his term when he signs an Executive Order mandating Freddie Mac finance tofu farms on Mars or something. While he would be significantly better than the bozo we have today, he’s a loose cannon.

At this point in my life I would vote for Arianna Huffington to replace DWS. At least Arainna has that Green Acres Zsa Zsa accent, instead of that nasal Jewish American Princes who now holds the office.

Anyone. Everyone. Contribute to Karen Harrington’s run for Congress and help remove DWS, the DNC democRAT wench, from office.

jpmotu on January 4, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Big mistake!

The more obnoxious they are -the easier they will be to defeat. Let their evil souls be bared for all to see and choose.

What I want almost more than anything for our next President is somebody who is not divisive so this country can go back to not obsessing over the Presidency like it has for the past 15 or so years–ever since Clinton.
Polynath on January 4, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Firstly as long as the MSM is in the tank for the Democrats every GOP President will be pilloried period. And contrary to your post it has always been like this since 1776 in fact. Although the Press is worse now than in a very long time. Those that want to be Kings/Dictators and Rulers will always fight against the people that want to govern themselves.

Thus the only answer is someone that will really stand up. So far I only see that in Gingrich. Only he has actually done this he stood up through the fire until it got him kicked out of the House on false charges. As President these false charges would not go so far.

Yeah, until about the 4th day of his term when he signs an Executive Order mandating Freddie Mac finance tofu farms on Mars or something. While he would be significantly better than the bozo we have today, he’s a loose cannon.

jb34461 on January 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Romney Lie Alert.
Newt voted against Freddie not for Freddie. He would most likely eliminate Freddie.

At the end of the day, last night happened in…. Iowa. A whopping 120,000 votes cast. Iowa. Heavily evangelical and far from a model fo the general electorate. Romney won over enough evangelicals to win the state. Good for him. Bad that we are putting so much stock in Iowa. Next time lets hold the first primary in a state like Ohio that looks more like the general electorate.

Wrong again. I do not support Romney. Nor do I support Newt’s history hypocrisy today. He was my hero, for awhile. I thought his American Solutions was a brilliant idea and the right direction to change the course of this country when it was created. But when the Wall Street Journal exposed his Freddie Mac payola several years ago he lost me completely. His handling of that today confirms my unease with his scruples.

DWS is a textbook case. She argues about evidence that she doesn’t agree with by saying, “Well, I haven’t seen that poll” or “I haven’t seen that data.” As if to say that since she hasn’t seen it, it doesn’t exist. I liked how Gretchen handled her.

DWS is the perfect propaganda minister for the DNC. Just like Goebbels was for the NSDAP (NAZI) party in Germany. You tell the story the party wants heard, you stay on topic and you repeat the lies until they’re believed. She’s revolting to us. To them she’s delightful.

It would be great for her to lose but short of tweeting pix of her privates (a la Weiner) she’e probably going to keep her seat.

I have a lot of reservations on Newt. But they are personal. 24 year old teacher dating a 16 year old student he eventually marries. But really most of us have at least wanted to to this at some point. That he did shows poor judgment as a 24 year old. Now he then goes on to not once but twice divorce a wife to marry an employee. Then he was older so I do hold that against him but then to it is so common these days that you can not eliminate any who get caught cheating and just say you should hide it better. The hider is worse in my opinion.

The rest have been shot down one after the other. We should not allow the MSM to choose our candidate and in fact if they want one we should run from him like we would fire in a building. That eliminates Romney.

Leaving only Santourm and Gingrich. The first a proud Porker in his own words that eliminates him Gingrich on the other hand eliminated much of the welfare pork and cut more spending than anyone else in the last 100 years. He actually balanced the Budget that can not be denied. He also united with Clinton to do it.

I don’t think Debs or President Downgrade realize that whoever he runs against he still will have to defend his dismal record and failed policies. I’m personally not thrilled with any republican candidate but I can tell you already I will vote for Obama’s opponent because we simply cannot continue down this path.

I left out Paul because firstly he is way too old. 76 is just too old he would be 80 after first term. No no no. That alone is enough.

But his foreign policy the worse part of Obama is far to Obama’s left. Someone has to be the world cop if not us it will be China. China will then work towards world control along with Russia. Now they will be fighting the Muslims and are even now. So I guess that would be a temporary advantage but only temporary as when the winner was made clear we would be ruled by that winner.

We don’t have the luxury of time – we’re already 100% of our GDP in debt
AH_C on January 4, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Nice graphs! But I really don’t completely agree with them. Also, it is questionable whether Romney will shove us over the edge, while no matter who congress is Zero will push us over (just look at his illegal “recess” appointment today). I would take my chances with “hope he won’t” rather than “know he will”.

Again, my disclaimer: Romney is a douchebag and I do not want him to get the nomination.

DWS is correct, the dems should be thrilled, but not for her stated reasons.

There are simply too many people like me, those who see the reality that is Romney. What we know is that the biggest issue facing us right now is the out of control spending of the feds. We know the leftists have us on autopilot to fiscal meltdown and the current crop of reps in the house are too weak to stop it or even slow it down.

But more importantly, we know Romney won’t cut a dime from the budget. He knows it, we know it, and you know it. Since we all know this is the case, why are we going to elect him? We already have a free-spending leftist in the WH, no reason to change horses when that particular leftist can run for another term.

Romney will get the nomination (as I’ve been saying from the start of this) and there’s nothing we can do to stop him. But I do NOT have to vote for another free-spending leftist.

OR is it a loss when the DNC chair claims unemployment is down when actually it’s at 11%. The true number based on actual job loss vs total jobs and the U6 factual unemployment is at 16.5% based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Remember, GW Bush’s unemployment HIGH was 7.6% and his average for 8 YEARS was 5% AND the DNC claimed that was too high.

Then, too, conventional wisdom and common sense now suggest that the nominee will almost certainly be Romney

I wholeheartedly reject that assumption.

It is a meme that the Democrats continue to push in order to go against somebody who cannot fight Obama on Obamacare, his one big piece of legislation. Also, if they nominate Romney, then they will have again avoided losing to a real conservative, and, thus, have half of everything that they want even while losing.

Again, why are conservative women such hotties and lib women so fugly?
(Yes, I realize I’ve asked this before)

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Why, thank you dahlink! *blows kisses”

Seriously, I’ve seen the comparison pics. I don’t get it either. Maybe the libbie women think that bad hair and no make-up (or bad make-up) makes them look more down to earth. I guess that appeals to libbie men. *shrug* I prefer looking attractive as opposed to something the cat threw up. I have no wish to look appealing to libbie men.